4 ms·
Your statement uses pretty charged language and I don't think you're considering all of the potential scenarios. The first is that giant companies like Faceboo
by dumbfoundded 5y ago
Your statement uses pretty charged language and I don't think you're considering all of the potential scenarios.
The first is that giant companies like Facebook are so vastly giant and you have no idea what he does for them. If he was on the React team at Facebook, would that be acceptable to you? Just like governments, giant companies have good and bad parts.
The second is that you don't know anyone's situation. This employee could really need the money. Sometimes people get caught in situations where they have to support their parents or siblings or cousins. Voting still matters as well as encouraging others to vote. Who gets to decide what the real action is?
Most people in any case don't view themselves as responsible for what decisions are made at the C-level. It would be more helpful to encourage employees to do what they can and blow the whistle if necessary than to demonize them. Most people invested in the stock market are holding some Facebook, probably as part of some index fund. Maybe we should encourage people to invest in privacy rights focused ETFs.
- oska 5y agoI appreciate your considered and nuanced reply to my fairly stark comment. My position on Facebook is that it is so awful an entity that it is not moral to work in any position in the company. And I don't buy the excuse of working for an immoral company (if you recognise it as such) because you need the money. But I recognise this is a fairly absolutist position.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago"There is no ethical consumption under capitalism." You can choose where to draw the line you want. Those who point fingers at other's moral purity only draw attention to their own.